Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'occupation', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("retired", "other", "unemploy", "unemploy", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=75.886, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=311]=212, stp[ipn_0]=72.8731).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=67.1938, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=296]=46, stp[ipn_0]=65.9524).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2381 | control, N = 1191 | treatment, N = 1191 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 236 | 51.30 ± 13.02 (23 - 75) | 50.76 ± 13.39 (23 - 75) | 51.82 ± 12.69 (28 - 75) | 0.532 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 238 | 0.316 | |||
f | 194 (82%) | 94 (79%) | 100 (84%) | ||
m | 44 (18%) | 25 (21%) | 19 (16%) | ||
occupation | 238 | ||||
day_training | 6 (2.5%) | 2 (1.7%) | 4 (3.4%) | ||
full_time | 26 (11%) | 13 (11%) | 13 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (13%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.7%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.5%) | ||
part_time | 42 (18%) | 23 (19%) | 19 (16%) | ||
retired | 57 (24%) | 26 (22%) | 31 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.4%) | 4 (3.4%) | 4 (3.4%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.7%) | 4 (3.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.7%) | 3 (2.5%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 53 (22%) | 28 (24%) | 25 (21%) | ||
marital | 238 | 0.875 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
divore | 26 (11%) | 14 (12%) | 12 (10%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (1.7%) | 2 (1.7%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
married | 71 (30%) | 33 (28%) | 38 (32%) | ||
none | 113 (47%) | 58 (49%) | 55 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.3%) | 2 (1.7%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (8.0%) | 10 (8.4%) | 9 (7.6%) | ||
edu | 238 | 0.622 | |||
bachelor | 48 (20%) | 20 (17%) | 28 (24%) | ||
diploma | 40 (17%) | 24 (20%) | 16 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.5%) | 4 (3.4%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 16 (6.7%) | 9 (7.6%) | 7 (5.9%) | ||
primary | 20 (8.4%) | 9 (7.6%) | 11 (9.2%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 65 (27%) | 30 (25%) | 35 (29%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.5%) | 6 (5.0%) | 7 (5.9%) | ||
fam_income | 238 | ||||
10001_12000 | 8 (3.4%) | 2 (1.7%) | 6 (5.0%) | ||
12001_14000 | 11 (4.6%) | 4 (3.4%) | 7 (5.9%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (5.0%) | 4 (3.4%) | 8 (6.7%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.1%) | 3 (2.5%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
18001_20000 | 10 (4.2%) | 7 (5.9%) | 3 (2.5%) | ||
20001_above | 40 (17%) | 24 (20%) | 16 (13%) | ||
2001_4000 | 35 (15%) | 17 (14%) | 18 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (13%) | 14 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 21 (8.8%) | 12 (10%) | 9 (7.6%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.4%) | 11 (9.2%) | 9 (7.6%) | ||
below_2000 | 45 (19%) | 21 (18%) | 24 (20%) | ||
medication | 238 | 213 (89%) | 106 (89%) | 107 (90%) | 0.833 |
onset_duration | 236 | 15.15 ± 10.98 (0 - 63) | 14.84 ± 11.30 (0 - 56) | 15.47 ± 10.69 (0 - 63) | 0.658 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 234 | 36.24 ± 14.75 (-18 - 72) | 35.84 ± 13.75 (10 - 72) | 36.63 ± 15.74 (-18 - 68) | 0.682 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2381 | control, N = 1191 | treatment, N = 1191 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 238 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.08 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 0.456 |
recovery_stage_b | 238 | 17.93 ± 2.95 (4 - 24) | 18.01 ± 3.13 (4 - 24) | 17.85 ± 2.77 (9 - 24) | 0.677 |
ras_confidence | 238 | 29.97 ± 5.63 (9 - 45) | 29.82 ± 5.76 (9 - 45) | 30.13 ± 5.51 (9 - 45) | 0.671 |
ras_willingness | 238 | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 11.61 ± 2.11 (5 - 15) | 11.70 ± 2.18 (3 - 15) | 0.763 |
ras_goal | 238 | 17.40 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 17.23 ± 3.34 (5 - 25) | 17.58 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 0.415 |
ras_reliance | 238 | 13.25 ± 2.87 (4 - 20) | 13.16 ± 2.83 (5 - 20) | 13.34 ± 2.91 (4 - 20) | 0.636 |
ras_domination | 238 | 9.82 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 10.02 ± 2.44 (3 - 15) | 9.62 ± 2.41 (3 - 15) | 0.211 |
symptom | 238 | 30.74 ± 9.96 (14 - 70) | 31.36 ± 10.62 (14 - 70) | 30.12 ± 9.27 (14 - 56) | 0.337 |
slof_work | 238 | 22.17 ± 4.63 (10 - 30) | 22.27 ± 4.36 (12 - 30) | 22.08 ± 4.90 (10 - 30) | 0.748 |
slof_relationship | 238 | 25.08 ± 5.76 (9 - 35) | 24.68 ± 5.82 (9 - 35) | 25.48 ± 5.69 (11 - 35) | 0.286 |
satisfaction | 238 | 20.49 ± 7.22 (5 - 35) | 19.90 ± 7.22 (5 - 35) | 21.08 ± 7.20 (5 - 35) | 0.210 |
mhc_emotional | 238 | 10.87 ± 3.76 (3 - 19) | 10.77 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 10.96 ± 3.76 (3 - 19) | 0.705 |
mhc_social | 238 | 15.33 ± 6.01 (5 - 30) | 15.34 ± 6.08 (5 - 30) | 15.32 ± 5.96 (5 - 30) | 0.974 |
mhc_psychological | 238 | 21.87 ± 6.88 (6 - 36) | 21.84 ± 6.80 (6 - 36) | 21.90 ± 6.98 (6 - 36) | 0.948 |
resilisnce | 238 | 16.66 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 16.29 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 17.02 ± 4.68 (6 - 30) | 0.214 |
social_provision | 238 | 13.60 ± 2.78 (5 - 20) | 13.24 ± 2.74 (5 - 20) | 13.95 ± 2.78 (5 - 20) | 0.050 |
els_value_living | 238 | 17.07 ± 3.17 (5 - 25) | 16.88 ± 3.13 (6 - 25) | 17.25 ± 3.21 (5 - 25) | 0.370 |
els_life_fulfill | 238 | 12.84 ± 3.37 (4 - 20) | 12.50 ± 3.44 (4 - 20) | 13.17 ± 3.27 (4 - 20) | 0.128 |
els | 238 | 29.90 ± 6.02 (9 - 45) | 29.39 ± 6.05 (11 - 45) | 30.42 ± 5.97 (9 - 45) | 0.186 |
social_connect | 238 | 27.05 ± 9.11 (8 - 48) | 27.56 ± 9.00 (8 - 48) | 26.53 ± 9.23 (8 - 48) | 0.382 |
shs_agency | 238 | 14.45 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 13.97 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 14.92 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 0.149 |
shs_pathway | 238 | 15.91 ± 4.23 (3 - 24) | 15.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 24) | 16.39 ± 4.05 (4 - 24) | 0.080 |
shs | 238 | 30.35 ± 8.85 (6 - 48) | 29.40 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.30 ± 8.65 (7 - 48) | 0.098 |
esteem | 238 | 12.76 ± 1.68 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.75 (9 - 20) | 12.71 ± 1.62 (10 - 20) | 0.701 |
mlq_search | 238 | 14.79 ± 3.50 (3 - 21) | 14.49 ± 3.55 (3 - 21) | 15.09 ± 3.43 (3 - 21) | 0.182 |
mlq_presence | 238 | 13.50 ± 4.27 (3 - 21) | 13.31 ± 4.17 (3 - 21) | 13.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 21) | 0.496 |
mlq | 238 | 28.29 ± 6.97 (6 - 42) | 27.80 ± 6.95 (6 - 42) | 28.78 ± 7.00 (6 - 42) | 0.278 |
empower | 238 | 19.26 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 19.00 ± 4.46 (6 - 30) | 19.51 ± 4.49 (6 - 30) | 0.377 |
ismi_resistance | 238 | 14.39 ± 2.63 (5 - 20) | 14.42 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 0.844 |
ismi_discrimation | 238 | 11.75 ± 3.07 (5 - 20) | 11.76 ± 3.03 (5 - 20) | 11.74 ± 3.11 (5 - 20) | 0.966 |
sss_affective | 238 | 10.49 ± 3.70 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.57 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.727 |
sss_behavior | 238 | 10.14 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 10.22 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 10.07 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 0.759 |
sss_cognitive | 238 | 8.90 ± 3.86 (3 - 18) | 8.74 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 9.07 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 0.514 |
sss | 238 | 29.53 ± 10.70 (9 - 54) | 29.36 ± 10.59 (9 - 54) | 29.71 ± 10.85 (9 - 54) | 0.804 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.111 | 2.98, 3.42 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.118 | 0.157 | -0.426, 0.190 | 0.455 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.033 | 0.146 | -0.254, 0.319 | 0.824 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.311 | 0.209 | -0.100, 0.721 | 0.140 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.0 | 0.273 | 17.5, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.160 | 0.386 | -0.916, 0.597 | 0.679 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.217 | 0.277 | -0.760, 0.326 | 0.435 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.870 | 0.398 | 0.089, 1.65 | 0.030 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.522 | 28.8, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.311 | 0.739 | -1.14, 1.76 | 0.674 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.667 | 0.471 | -0.257, 1.59 | 0.159 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.30 | 0.677 | -0.023, 2.63 | 0.056 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.194 | 11.2, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.084 | 0.274 | -0.453, 0.621 | 0.759 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.064 | 0.205 | -0.339, 0.467 | 0.756 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.316 | 0.295 | -0.262, 0.894 | 0.286 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.305 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.353 | 0.431 | -0.492, 1.20 | 0.414 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.293 | 0.299 | -0.293, 0.878 | 0.328 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.564 | 0.429 | -0.277, 1.41 | 0.191 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.268 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.176 | 0.379 | -0.567, 0.920 | 0.642 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.249 | 0.250 | -0.241, 0.740 | 0.321 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.570 | 0.360 | -0.136, 1.27 | 0.115 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.222 | 9.58, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.395 | 0.315 | -1.01, 0.222 | 0.210 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.026 | 0.249 | -0.513, 0.462 | 0.918 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.885 | 0.357 | 0.185, 1.59 | 0.014 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.4 | 0.911 | 29.6, 33.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.24 | 1.289 | -3.77, 1.28 | 0.335 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.06 | 0.781 | -2.59, 0.465 | 0.175 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.314 | 1.122 | -2.51, 1.89 | 0.780 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.3 | 0.420 | 21.4, 23.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.193 | 0.594 | -1.36, 0.970 | 0.745 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.241 | 0.402 | -0.547, 1.03 | 0.550 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.490 | 0.578 | -0.642, 1.62 | 0.397 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.7 | 0.526 | 23.7, 25.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.798 | 0.743 | -0.659, 2.26 | 0.284 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.107 | 0.501 | -1.09, 0.875 | 0.831 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.785 | 0.720 | -0.625, 2.20 | 0.277 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.9 | 0.663 | 18.6, 21.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.937 | -0.660, 3.01 | 0.210 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.847 | 0.606 | -0.340, 2.03 | 0.164 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.336 | 0.870 | -1.37, 2.04 | 0.700 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.8 | 0.343 | 10.1, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.185 | 0.486 | -0.767, 1.14 | 0.704 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.383 | 0.291 | -0.187, 0.953 | 0.190 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.118 | 0.418 | -0.937, 0.701 | 0.778 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.561 | 14.2, 16.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.025 | 0.794 | -1.58, 1.53 | 0.975 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.658 | 0.495 | -0.312, 1.63 | 0.186 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.007 | 0.711 | -1.40, 1.39 | 0.992 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.649 | 20.6, 23.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.059 | 0.917 | -1.74, 1.86 | 0.949 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.00 | 0.575 | -0.122, 2.13 | 0.082 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.293 | 0.826 | -1.91, 1.33 | 0.724 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.405 | 15.5, 17.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.723 | 0.573 | -0.400, 1.84 | 0.208 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.714 | 0.400 | -0.070, 1.50 | 0.076 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.784 | 0.575 | -0.344, 1.91 | 0.175 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.260 | 12.7, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.706 | 0.368 | -0.016, 1.43 | 0.056 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.180 | 0.256 | -0.682, 0.322 | 0.483 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.503 | 0.368 | -0.218, 1.22 | 0.173 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 0.293 | 16.3, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.370 | 0.415 | -0.443, 1.18 | 0.374 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.347 | 0.282 | -0.204, 0.899 | 0.219 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.316 | 0.405 | -0.477, 1.11 | 0.436 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.306 | 11.9, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.664 | 0.433 | -0.184, 1.51 | 0.126 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.234 | 0.275 | -0.305, 0.773 | 0.397 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.321 | 0.395 | -0.453, 1.10 | 0.417 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.555 | 28.3, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.03 | 0.785 | -0.505, 2.57 | 0.189 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.610 | 0.480 | -0.331, 1.55 | 0.206 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.607 | 0.691 | -0.747, 1.96 | 0.381 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 0.846 | 25.9, 29.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.03 | 1.197 | -3.38, 1.31 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.178 | 0.715 | -1.58, 1.22 | 0.803 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.81 | 1.028 | -4.83, -0.800 | 0.007 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.0 | 0.466 | 13.1, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.941 | 0.659 | -0.350, 2.23 | 0.154 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.343 | 0.391 | -0.423, 1.11 | 0.381 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.458 | 0.562 | -0.644, 1.56 | 0.417 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.377 | 14.7, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.958 | 0.533 | -0.087, 2.00 | 0.074 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.616 | 0.348 | -0.065, 1.30 | 0.078 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.201 | 0.500 | -0.778, 1.18 | 0.687 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.803 | 27.8, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.90 | 1.136 | -0.328, 4.13 | 0.096 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.970 | 0.676 | -0.355, 2.29 | 0.153 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.641 | 0.972 | -1.26, 2.55 | 0.511 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.146 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.084 | 0.207 | -0.490, 0.322 | 0.685 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.134 | 0.185 | -0.496, 0.229 | 0.470 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.091 | 0.265 | -0.429, 0.612 | 0.731 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.317 | 13.9, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.605 | 0.449 | -0.274, 1.48 | 0.178 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.825 | 0.350 | 0.139, 1.51 | 0.019 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.731 | 0.502 | -1.72, 0.253 | 0.147 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.387 | 12.6, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.378 | 0.547 | -0.695, 1.45 | 0.490 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.851 | 0.398 | 0.071, 1.63 | 0.034 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.054 | 0.572 | -1.17, 1.07 | 0.924 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 0.638 | 26.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.983 | 0.903 | -0.786, 2.75 | 0.277 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.68 | 0.666 | 0.375, 2.99 | 0.013 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.783 | 0.957 | -2.66, 1.09 | 0.415 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.416 | 18.2, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.513 | 0.588 | -0.639, 1.66 | 0.384 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.856 | 0.389 | 0.093, 1.62 | 0.029 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.226 | 0.559 | -1.32, 0.870 | 0.687 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.237 | 14.0, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.067 | 0.335 | -0.724, 0.589 | 0.841 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.286 | 0.278 | -0.258, 0.831 | 0.304 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.593 | 0.399 | -0.189, 1.37 | 0.139 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.283 | 11.2, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.017 | 0.400 | -0.800, 0.767 | 0.966 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.443 | 0.325 | -1.08, 0.195 | 0.175 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.646 | 0.467 | -1.56, 0.269 | 0.168 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.340 | 9.74, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.168 | 0.480 | -0.773, 1.11 | 0.727 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.442 | 0.311 | -1.05, 0.167 | 0.157 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.662 | 0.447 | -1.54, 0.214 | 0.140 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.345 | 9.54, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.151 | 0.488 | -1.11, 0.805 | 0.757 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.658 | 0.308 | -1.26, -0.055 | 0.034 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.106 | 0.443 | -0.973, 0.761 | 0.811 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.74 | 0.344 | 8.06, 9.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.328 | 0.487 | -0.626, 1.28 | 0.501 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.535 | 0.312 | -1.15, 0.076 | 0.088 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.580 | 0.448 | -1.46, 0.298 | 0.197 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.970 | 27.5, 31.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.345 | 1.371 | -2.34, 3.03 | 0.802 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.61 | 0.797 | -3.17, -0.043 | 0.046 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.30 | 1.146 | -3.55, 0.943 | 0.257 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.98, 3.42], t(375) = 28.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.19], t(375) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32], t(375) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72], t(375) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.47, 18.54], t(375) = 65.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.60], t(375) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.33], t(375) = -0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [0.09, 1.65], t(375) = 2.18, p = 0.029; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [0.03, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.82 (95% CI [28.79, 30.84], t(375) = 57.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.76], t(375) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.59], t(375) = 1.41, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.02, 2.63], t(375) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-4.06e-03, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.61 (95% CI [11.23, 11.99], t(375) = 59.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.62], t(375) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.47], t(375) = 0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.89], t(375) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.23 (95% CI [16.63, 17.82], t(375) = 56.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.20], t(375) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.88], t(375) = 0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.41], t(375) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.63, 13.69], t(375) = 49.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.92], t(375) = 0.47, p = 0.642; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.74], t(375) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.27], t(375) = 1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.02 (95% CI [9.58, 10.45], t(375) = 45.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.22], t(375) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.46], t(375) = -0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [0.19, 1.59], t(375) = 2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.08, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.36 (95% CI [29.57, 33.15], t(375) = 34.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.77, 1.28], t(375) = -0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.59, 0.47], t(375) = -1.36, p = 0.172; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-2.51, 1.89], t(375) = -0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.27 (95% CI [21.45, 23.09], t(375) = 53.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.97], t(375) = -0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.03], t(375) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.62], t(375) = 0.85, p = 0.396; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.68 (95% CI [23.65, 25.71], t(375) = 46.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.26], t(375) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.87], t(375) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.20], t(375) = 1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.90 (95% CI [18.60, 21.20], t(375) = 30.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.01], t(375) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.03], t(375) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.04], t(375) = 0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.77 (95% CI [10.10, 11.45], t(375) = 31.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.14], t(375) = 0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.95], t(375) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.70], t(375) = -0.28, p = 0.778; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.69e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.34 (95% CI [14.24, 16.44], t(375) = 27.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.53], t(375) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.63], t(375) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -6.85e-03, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.39], t(375) = -9.63e-03, p = 0.992; Std. beta = -1.14e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.84 (95% CI [20.57, 23.11], t(375) = 33.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.86], t(375) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.13], t(375) = 1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.33], t(375) = -0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.50, 17.09], t(375) = 40.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.84], t(375) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.50], t(375) = 1.78, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.91], t(375) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.73, 13.75], t(375) = 50.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.43], t(375) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-5.46e-03, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.32], t(375) = -0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.22], t(375) = 1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [16.31, 17.46], t(375) = 57.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.18], t(375) = 0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.90], t(375) = 1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.11], t(375) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.50 (95% CI [11.90, 13.10], t(375) = 40.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.51], t(375) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.77], t(375) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.10], t(375) = 0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.39 (95% CI [28.30, 30.47], t(375) = 52.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.57], t(375) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.55], t(375) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.96], t(375) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.56 (95% CI [25.90, 29.22], t(375) = 32.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.31], t(375) = -0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.22], t(375) = -0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.81, 95% CI [-4.83, -0.80], t(375) = -2.74, p = 0.006; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.51, -0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [13.06, 14.89], t(375) = 30.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.23], t(375) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.11], t(375) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.56], t(375) = 0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.43 (95% CI [14.69, 16.17], t(375) = 40.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.00], t(375) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.30], t(375) = 1.77, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.18], t(375) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.40 (95% CI [27.83, 30.98], t(375) = 36.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-0.33, 4.13], t(375) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.29], t(375) = 1.43, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.55], t(375) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.51, 13.09], t(375) = 87.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.32], t(375) = -0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.23], t(375) = -0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.61], t(375) = 0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.49 (95% CI [13.87, 15.11], t(375) = 45.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.48], t(375) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [0.14, 1.51], t(375) = 2.36, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.04, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.25], t(375) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.55, 14.07], t(375) = 34.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.45], t(375) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [0.07, 1.63], t(375) = 2.14, p = 0.032; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.02, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.07], t(375) = -0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [26.55, 29.05], t(375) = 43.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.75], t(375) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [0.37, 2.99], t(375) = 2.52, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.05, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.66, 1.09], t(375) = -0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.00 (95% CI [18.19, 19.81], t(375) = 45.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.66], t(375) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.09, 1.62], t(375) = 2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.02, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.87], t(375) = -0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.96, 14.88], t(375) = 60.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.59], t(375) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.83], t(375) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.37], t(375) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.20, 12.31], t(375) = 41.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.77], t(375) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -5.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.19], t(375) = -1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.27], t(375) = -1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.74, 11.07], t(375) = 30.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.11], t(375) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.17], t(375) = -1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.21], t(375) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.54, 10.89], t(375) = 29.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.81], t(375) = -0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.26, -0.05], t(375) = -2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, -0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.76], t(375) = -0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.74 (95% CI [8.06, 9.41], t(375) = 25.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.28], t(375) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.08], t(375) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.30], t(375) = -1.29, p = 0.195; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.36 (95% CI [27.46, 31.26], t(375) = 30.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.34, 3.03], t(375) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-3.17, -0.04], t(375) = -2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, -4.05e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-3.55, 0.94], t(375) = -1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,211.146 | 1,222.974 | -602.573 | 1,205.146 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,211.899 | 1,235.556 | -599.950 | 1,199.899 | 5.246 | 3 | 0.155 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,839.551 | 1,851.379 | -916.775 | 1,833.551 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,839.652 | 1,863.309 | -913.826 | 1,827.652 | 5.898 | 3 | 0.117 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,317.410 | 2,329.238 | -1,155.705 | 2,311.410 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,304.881 | 2,328.538 | -1,146.441 | 2,292.881 | 18.529 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,586.543 | 1,598.371 | -790.271 | 1,580.543 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,588.699 | 1,612.356 | -788.349 | 1,576.699 | 3.844 | 3 | 0.279 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,919.546 | 1,931.374 | -956.773 | 1,913.546 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,915.377 | 1,939.034 | -951.689 | 1,903.377 | 10.169 | 3 | 0.017 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,810.974 | 1,822.802 | -902.487 | 1,804.974 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,805.240 | 1,828.897 | -896.620 | 1,793.240 | 11.733 | 3 | 0.008 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,711.898 | 1,723.727 | -852.949 | 1,705.898 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,706.704 | 1,730.361 | -847.352 | 1,694.704 | 11.194 | 3 | 0.011 |
symptom | null | 3 | 2,715.480 | 2,727.308 | -1,354.740 | 2,709.480 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 2,715.564 | 2,739.220 | -1,351.782 | 2,703.564 | 5.916 | 3 | 0.116 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,150.764 | 2,162.592 | -1,072.382 | 2,144.764 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,153.287 | 2,176.944 | -1,070.643 | 2,141.287 | 3.477 | 3 | 0.324 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,321.302 | 2,333.130 | -1,157.651 | 2,315.302 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,323.334 | 2,346.991 | -1,155.667 | 2,311.334 | 3.968 | 3 | 0.265 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,490.794 | 2,502.623 | -1,242.397 | 2,484.794 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,489.299 | 2,512.956 | -1,238.649 | 2,477.299 | 7.495 | 3 | 0.058 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,965.424 | 1,977.252 | -979.712 | 1,959.424 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,968.825 | 1,992.481 | -978.412 | 1,956.825 | 2.599 | 3 | 0.458 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,350.780 | 2,362.608 | -1,172.390 | 2,344.780 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,353.416 | 2,377.073 | -1,170.708 | 2,341.416 | 3.363 | 3 | 0.339 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,463.451 | 2,475.279 | -1,228.725 | 2,457.451 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,465.004 | 2,488.661 | -1,226.502 | 2,453.004 | 4.446 | 3 | 0.217 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,146.516 | 2,158.345 | -1,070.258 | 2,140.516 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,133.737 | 2,157.394 | -1,060.868 | 2,121.737 | 18.780 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,798.146 | 1,809.974 | -896.073 | 1,792.146 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,796.025 | 1,819.682 | -892.012 | 1,784.025 | 8.121 | 3 | 0.044 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,882.867 | 1,894.695 | -938.433 | 1,876.867 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,880.823 | 1,904.480 | -934.412 | 1,868.823 | 8.043 | 3 | 0.045 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,898.021 | 1,909.849 | -946.010 | 1,892.021 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,896.132 | 1,919.789 | -942.066 | 1,884.132 | 7.888 | 3 | 0.048 |
els | null | 3 | 2,344.645 | 2,356.473 | -1,169.322 | 2,338.645 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,340.548 | 2,364.205 | -1,164.274 | 2,328.548 | 10.096 | 3 | 0.018 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,668.017 | 2,679.845 | -1,331.009 | 2,662.017 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,655.408 | 2,679.065 | -1,321.704 | 2,643.408 | 18.609 | 3 | 0.000 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,200.404 | 2,212.232 | -1,097.202 | 2,194.404 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,198.865 | 2,222.522 | -1,093.433 | 2,186.865 | 7.539 | 3 | 0.057 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,068.152 | 2,079.981 | -1,031.076 | 2,062.152 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,061.997 | 2,085.653 | -1,024.998 | 2,049.997 | 12.156 | 3 | 0.007 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,619.657 | 2,631.485 | -1,306.828 | 2,613.657 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,614.788 | 2,638.444 | -1,301.394 | 2,602.788 | 10.869 | 3 | 0.012 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,409.234 | 1,421.063 | -701.617 | 1,403.234 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,414.582 | 1,438.238 | -701.291 | 1,402.582 | 0.653 | 3 | 0.884 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,974.156 | 1,985.984 | -984.078 | 1,968.156 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,973.843 | 1,997.500 | -980.922 | 1,961.843 | 6.313 | 3 | 0.097 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,111.574 | 2,123.403 | -1,052.787 | 2,105.574 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,108.998 | 2,132.655 | -1,048.499 | 2,096.998 | 8.576 | 3 | 0.035 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,496.403 | 2,508.232 | -1,245.202 | 2,490.403 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,493.823 | 2,517.479 | -1,240.911 | 2,481.823 | 8.581 | 3 | 0.035 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,141.695 | 2,153.523 | -1,067.847 | 2,135.695 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,139.935 | 2,163.592 | -1,063.967 | 2,127.935 | 7.760 | 3 | 0.051 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,769.826 | 1,781.655 | -881.913 | 1,763.826 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,765.344 | 1,789.001 | -876.672 | 1,753.344 | 10.482 | 3 | 0.015 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,902.185 | 1,914.013 | -948.092 | 1,896.185 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,895.691 | 1,919.348 | -941.846 | 1,883.691 | 12.494 | 3 | 0.006 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,987.965 | 1,999.794 | -990.983 | 1,981.965 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,980.324 | 2,003.981 | -984.162 | 1,968.324 | 13.641 | 3 | 0.003 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,990.447 | 2,002.275 | -992.223 | 1,984.447 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,986.062 | 2,009.719 | -987.031 | 1,974.062 | 10.385 | 3 | 0.016 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,996.706 | 2,008.535 | -995.353 | 1,990.706 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,987.878 | 2,011.535 | -987.939 | 1,975.878 | 14.828 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss | null | 3 | 2,762.337 | 2,774.166 | -1,378.169 | 2,756.337 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 2,752.175 | 2,775.832 | -1,370.088 | 2,740.175 | 16.162 | 3 | 0.001 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 119 | 3.20 ± 1.21 | 119 | 3.08 ± 1.21 | 0.455 | 0.125 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 74 | 3.23 ± 1.18 | -0.034 | 69 | 3.43 ± 1.17 | -0.364 | 0.327 | -0.205 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 119 | 18.01 ± 2.98 | 119 | 17.85 ± 2.98 | 0.679 | 0.092 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 74 | 17.79 ± 2.73 | 0.124 | 69 | 18.50 ± 2.70 | -0.375 | 0.118 | -0.407 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 119 | 29.82 ± 5.70 | 119 | 30.13 ± 5.70 | 0.674 | -0.106 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 74 | 30.48 ± 5.09 | -0.227 | 69 | 32.10 ± 5.02 | -0.670 | 0.057 | -0.549 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 119 | 11.61 ± 2.11 | 119 | 11.70 ± 2.11 | 0.759 | -0.065 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 74 | 11.68 ± 1.95 | -0.049 | 69 | 12.08 ± 1.93 | -0.293 | 0.219 | -0.309 |
ras_goal | 1st | 119 | 17.23 ± 3.33 | 119 | 17.58 ± 3.33 | 0.414 | -0.188 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 74 | 17.52 ± 3.02 | -0.156 | 69 | 18.44 ± 2.99 | -0.457 | 0.069 | -0.489 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 119 | 13.16 ± 2.92 | 119 | 13.34 ± 2.92 | 0.642 | -0.113 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 74 | 13.41 ± 2.63 | -0.159 | 69 | 14.16 ± 2.60 | -0.523 | 0.089 | -0.476 |
ras_domination | 1st | 119 | 10.02 ± 2.43 | 119 | 9.62 ± 2.43 | 0.210 | 0.250 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 74 | 9.99 ± 2.27 | 0.016 | 69 | 10.48 ± 2.25 | -0.545 | 0.196 | -0.311 |
symptom | 1st | 119 | 31.36 ± 9.94 | 119 | 30.12 ± 9.94 | 0.335 | 0.256 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 74 | 30.30 ± 8.79 | 0.219 | 69 | 28.74 ± 8.65 | 0.284 | 0.287 | 0.321 |
slof_work | 1st | 119 | 22.27 ± 4.58 | 119 | 22.08 ± 4.58 | 0.745 | 0.077 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 74 | 22.51 ± 4.14 | -0.096 | 69 | 22.81 ± 4.09 | -0.290 | 0.666 | -0.118 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 119 | 24.68 ± 5.73 | 119 | 25.48 ± 5.73 | 0.284 | -0.255 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 74 | 24.57 ± 5.18 | 0.034 | 69 | 26.16 ± 5.11 | -0.216 | 0.067 | -0.505 |
satisfaction | 1st | 119 | 19.90 ± 7.23 | 119 | 21.08 ± 7.23 | 0.210 | -0.311 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 74 | 20.75 ± 6.47 | -0.224 | 69 | 22.26 ± 6.38 | -0.313 | 0.160 | -0.400 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 119 | 10.77 ± 3.75 | 119 | 10.96 ± 3.75 | 0.704 | -0.102 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 74 | 11.16 ± 3.31 | -0.212 | 69 | 11.22 ± 3.25 | -0.146 | 0.903 | -0.037 |
mhc_social | 1st | 119 | 15.34 ± 6.12 | 119 | 15.32 ± 6.12 | 0.975 | 0.008 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 74 | 16.00 ± 5.44 | -0.213 | 69 | 15.97 ± 5.36 | -0.211 | 0.972 | 0.010 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 119 | 21.84 ± 7.07 | 119 | 21.90 ± 7.07 | 0.949 | -0.016 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 74 | 22.84 ± 6.30 | -0.280 | 69 | 22.61 ± 6.20 | -0.199 | 0.823 | 0.065 |
resilisnce | 1st | 119 | 16.29 ± 4.42 | 119 | 17.02 ± 4.42 | 0.208 | -0.287 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 74 | 17.01 ± 4.02 | -0.284 | 69 | 18.51 ± 3.97 | -0.596 | 0.025 | -0.599 |
social_provision | 1st | 119 | 13.24 ± 2.84 | 119 | 13.95 ± 2.84 | 0.056 | -0.439 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 74 | 13.06 ± 2.58 | 0.112 | 69 | 14.27 ± 2.55 | -0.201 | 0.005 | -0.752 |
els_value_living | 1st | 119 | 16.88 ± 3.20 | 119 | 17.25 ± 3.20 | 0.374 | -0.210 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 74 | 17.23 ± 2.89 | -0.197 | 69 | 17.92 ± 2.86 | -0.376 | 0.155 | -0.389 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 119 | 12.50 ± 3.34 | 119 | 13.17 ± 3.34 | 0.126 | -0.387 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 74 | 12.74 ± 2.98 | -0.136 | 69 | 13.72 ± 2.94 | -0.323 | 0.047 | -0.574 |
els | 1st | 119 | 29.39 ± 6.06 | 119 | 30.42 ± 6.06 | 0.189 | -0.345 | ||
els | 2nd | 74 | 30.00 ± 5.37 | -0.204 | 69 | 31.64 ± 5.28 | -0.407 | 0.066 | -0.548 |
social_connect | 1st | 119 | 27.56 ± 9.23 | 119 | 26.53 ± 9.23 | 0.389 | 0.232 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 74 | 27.38 ± 8.14 | 0.040 | 69 | 23.54 ± 8.01 | 0.673 | 0.005 | 0.865 |
shs_agency | 1st | 119 | 13.97 ± 5.08 | 119 | 14.92 ± 5.08 | 0.154 | -0.387 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 74 | 14.32 ± 4.48 | -0.141 | 69 | 15.72 ± 4.40 | -0.329 | 0.060 | -0.575 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 119 | 15.43 ± 4.11 | 119 | 16.39 ± 4.11 | 0.074 | -0.441 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 74 | 16.05 ± 3.69 | -0.284 | 69 | 17.20 ± 3.64 | -0.377 | 0.059 | -0.534 |
shs | 1st | 119 | 29.40 ± 8.76 | 119 | 31.30 ± 8.76 | 0.096 | -0.452 | ||
shs | 2nd | 74 | 30.37 ± 7.72 | -0.231 | 69 | 32.91 ± 7.60 | -0.383 | 0.048 | -0.604 |
esteem | 1st | 119 | 12.80 ± 1.60 | 119 | 12.71 ± 1.60 | 0.685 | 0.071 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 74 | 12.66 ± 1.54 | 0.113 | 69 | 12.67 ± 1.53 | 0.036 | 0.977 | -0.006 |
mlq_search | 1st | 119 | 14.49 ± 3.46 | 119 | 15.09 ± 3.46 | 0.178 | -0.273 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 74 | 15.31 ± 3.23 | -0.372 | 69 | 15.19 ± 3.20 | -0.042 | 0.815 | 0.057 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 119 | 13.31 ± 4.22 | 119 | 13.69 ± 4.22 | 0.490 | -0.151 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 74 | 14.16 ± 3.88 | -0.340 | 69 | 14.49 ± 3.84 | -0.318 | 0.616 | -0.129 |
mlq | 1st | 119 | 27.80 ± 6.96 | 119 | 28.78 ± 6.96 | 0.277 | -0.234 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 74 | 29.48 ± 6.42 | -0.400 | 69 | 29.68 ± 6.35 | -0.214 | 0.851 | -0.048 |
empower | 1st | 119 | 19.00 ± 4.53 | 119 | 19.51 ± 4.53 | 0.384 | -0.211 | ||
empower | 2nd | 74 | 19.86 ± 4.08 | -0.352 | 69 | 20.14 ± 4.03 | -0.259 | 0.672 | -0.118 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 119 | 14.42 ± 2.58 | 119 | 14.35 ± 2.58 | 0.841 | 0.038 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 74 | 14.71 ± 2.45 | -0.162 | 69 | 15.23 ± 2.43 | -0.496 | 0.199 | -0.297 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 119 | 11.76 ± 3.08 | 119 | 11.74 ± 3.08 | 0.966 | 0.008 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 74 | 11.31 ± 2.91 | 0.214 | 69 | 10.65 ± 2.89 | 0.527 | 0.172 | 0.321 |
sss_affective | 1st | 119 | 10.40 ± 3.70 | 119 | 10.57 ± 3.70 | 0.727 | -0.087 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 74 | 9.96 ± 3.32 | 0.228 | 69 | 9.47 ± 3.27 | 0.568 | 0.371 | 0.254 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 119 | 10.22 ± 3.76 | 119 | 10.07 ± 3.76 | 0.757 | 0.079 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 74 | 9.56 ± 3.35 | 0.343 | 69 | 9.30 ± 3.31 | 0.398 | 0.645 | 0.134 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 119 | 8.74 ± 3.76 | 119 | 9.07 ± 3.76 | 0.501 | -0.168 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 74 | 8.20 ± 3.36 | 0.275 | 69 | 7.95 ± 3.31 | 0.573 | 0.651 | 0.130 |
sss | 1st | 119 | 29.36 ± 10.58 | 119 | 29.71 ± 10.58 | 0.802 | -0.070 | ||
sss | 2nd | 74 | 27.76 ± 9.28 | 0.324 | 69 | 26.80 ± 9.13 | 0.587 | 0.534 | 0.194 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(339.18) = -0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.19)
2st
t(376.94) = 0.98, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.58)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(291.97) = -0.41, p = 0.679, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.60)
2st
t(369.41) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.60)
ras_confidence
1st
t(278.35) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.77)
2st
t(359.49) = 1.91, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.05 to 3.28)
ras_willingness
1st
t(298.06) = 0.31, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.62)
2st
t(371.96) = 1.23, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.04)
ras_goal
1st
t(287.35) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.20)
2st
t(366.82) = 1.82, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.91)
ras_reliance
1st
t(281.91) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.92)
2st
t(362.81) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.61)
ras_domination
1st
t(306.54) = -1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.22)
2st
t(374.29) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.23)
symptom
1st
t(273.56) = -0.96, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.29)
2st
t(354.00) = -1.07, p = 0.287, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-4.43 to 1.31)
slof_work
1st
t(284.70) = -0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.98)
2st
t(365.01) = 0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.65)
slof_relationship
1st
t(284.10) = 1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.26)
2st
t(364.56) = 1.84, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.11 to 3.28)
satisfaction
1st
t(279.64) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.02)
2st
t(360.76) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.60 to 3.63)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(272.57) = 0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.14)
2st
t(352.69) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.15)
mhc_social
1st
t(276.14) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.54)
2st
t(357.12) = -0.04, p = 0.972, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.81 to 1.75)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(276.62) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.86)
2st
t(357.66) = -0.22, p = 0.823, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.82)
resilisnce
1st
t(288.55) = 1.26, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.85)
2st
t(367.55) = 2.25, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.82)
social_provision
1st
t(287.83) = 1.92, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.43)
2st
t(367.11) = 2.81, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.05)
els_value_living
1st
t(284.94) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.19)
2st
t(365.18) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.63)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(278.02) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.52)
2st
t(359.16) = 1.99, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.96)
els
1st
t(274.45) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.58)
2st
t(355.11) = 1.84, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.11 to 3.39)
social_connect
1st
t(272.38) = -0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.32)
2st
t(352.43) = -2.85, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-6.50 to -1.19)
shs_agency
1st
t(271.93) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.24)
2st
t(351.81) = 1.88, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.86)
shs_pathway
1st
t(280.51) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.01)
2st
t(361.58) = 1.89, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.37)
shs
1st
t(272.07) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.14)
2st
t(352.00) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.02 to 5.06)
esteem
1st
t(330.19) = -0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.32)
2st
t(376.74) = 0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.51)
mlq_search
1st
t(304.16) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.49)
2st
t(373.76) = -0.23, p = 0.815, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.93)
mlq_presence
1st
t(293.58) = 0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.46)
2st
t(370.17) = 0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.59)
mlq
1st
t(295.68) = 1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.76)
2st
t(371.07) = 0.19, p = 0.851, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.90 to 2.30)
empower
1st
t(282.17) = 0.87, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.67)
2st
t(363.02) = 0.42, p = 0.672, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.62)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(315.12) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.59)
2st
t(375.67) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.33)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(311.57) = -0.04, p = 0.966, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.77)
2st
t(375.20) = -1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.29)
sss_affective
1st
t(279.86) = 0.35, p = 0.727, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.11)
2st
t(360.97) = -0.90, p = 0.371, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.59)
sss_behavior
1st
t(277.26) = -0.31, p = 0.757, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.81)
2st
t(358.35) = -0.46, p = 0.645, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.84)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(278.69) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.29)
2st
t(359.84) = -0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.84)
sss
1st
t(270.21) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.36 to 3.04)
2st
t(349.31) = -0.62, p = 0.534, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.99 to 2.07)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(185.51) = 2.28, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.05 to 0.64)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(164.17) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.22)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(158.51) = 4.05, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (1.01 to 2.93)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(166.74) = 1.79, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.80)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(162.25) = 2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.47)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(159.99) = 3.17, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.33)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(170.37) = 3.35, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.37)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(156.54) = -1.71, p = 0.179, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.97 to 0.22)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(161.14) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.55)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(160.90) = 1.31, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.70)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(159.05) = 1.89, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.42)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(156.13) = 0.88, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.86)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(157.60) = 1.27, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.66)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(157.80) = 1.20, p = 0.465, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.89)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(162.74) = 3.62, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.68 to 2.31)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(162.44) = 1.22, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.85)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(161.24) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.24)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(158.38) = 1.95, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.12)
els
1st vs 2st
t(156.90) = 2.45, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.20)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(156.05) = -4.05, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-4.45 to -1.53)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(155.87) = 1.98, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.60)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(159.41) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.53)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(155.93) = 2.30, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.99)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(181.06) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.33)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(169.34) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.81)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(164.85) = 1.94, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.61)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(165.73) = 1.30, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.26)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(160.09) = 1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.42)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(174.12) = 3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.44)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(172.56) = -3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.43)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(159.14) = -3.44, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.74 to -0.47)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(158.06) = -2.40, p = 0.035, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.39 to -0.14)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(158.66) = -3.46, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.48)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(155.16) = -3.53, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.54 to -1.28)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(180.74) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.32)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(161.73) = -0.78, p = 0.872, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.33)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(156.69) = 1.41, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.60)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(164.02) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.47)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(160.02) = 0.98, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.88)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(158.00) = 1.00, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.74)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(167.25) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.47)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(154.93) = -1.36, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.61 to 0.48)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(159.03) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.04)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(158.81) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.88)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(157.16) = 1.40, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.04)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(154.56) = 1.32, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.96)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(155.88) = 1.33, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.64)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(156.05) = 1.75, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.14)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(160.46) = 1.78, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.51)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(160.19) = -0.70, p = 0.967, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.33)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(159.12) = 1.23, p = 0.439, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.90)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(156.57) = 0.85, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.78)
els
1st vs 2st
t(155.25) = 1.27, p = 0.413, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.56)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(154.49) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.24)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(154.33) = 0.88, p = 0.764, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.12)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(157.49) = 1.77, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.30)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(154.38) = 1.43, p = 0.308, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.31)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(176.78) = -0.72, p = 0.942, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.23)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(166.34) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.52)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(162.34) = 2.14, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.64)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(163.12) = 2.52, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.36 to 3.00)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(158.10) = 2.20, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.63)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(170.60) = 1.03, p = 0.610, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.84)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(169.20) = -1.36, p = 0.352, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.20)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(157.24) = -1.42, p = 0.315, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.17)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(156.29) = -2.14, p = 0.069, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.27 to -0.05)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(156.81) = -1.71, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.08)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(153.69) = -2.01, p = 0.092, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.18 to -0.03)
Plot
